On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 04:27 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-11-22 00:37:14 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > In the end, you shouldn't have let aptitude remove the packages. It can > > happen from time to time on unstable to have temporary inconsistent > > state in the apt tree (that's why it's called unstable), for example in > > this case it was probably because the new amd64 version was up in the > > repo but the i386 was still being built/published. > > The problem here is that aptitude said that the packages were > no longer used, i.e. there were no dependencies on them. This > is very misleading.
I have no control over what text aptitude outputs, I suggest contacting the aptitude maintainers if you have a suggestion regarding that. > Still, there are missing Breaks. No, there are not. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
